Bank of America v. Solow

59 A.D.3d 304, 874 N.Y.S.2d 48
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 24, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 59 A.D.3d 304 (Bank of America v. Solow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bank of America v. Solow, 59 A.D.3d 304, 874 N.Y.S.2d 48 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered June 12, 2008, awarding plaintiff the principal sum of $15,910,000, on a guarantee, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered April 18, 2008, which granted plaintiffs CPLR 3213 motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint on the aforementioned guarantee and denied defendant’s cross motion to dismiss, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the aforesaid order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed within the appeal from the judgment.

Plaintiff demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment by establishing the existence of a guaranty and submitting an affidavit of nonpayment (see JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Complete Envtl. Servs., Inc., 21 Misc 3d 1113[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 52062[U] [Sup Ct, Nassau County 2008]). The guaranty was absolute and unconditional, expressly waived demand or presentment and was expressly made a primary obligation of the defendant, so that no formal demand, beyond the motion in lieu [305]*305of complaint itself, was necessary to state a cause of action on the guaranty (cf First Natl. Bank of Waterloo v Story, 200 NY 346, 354 [1911]). Recourse to CPLR 3213 was appropriate, since the guaranty was “an instrument for the payment of money only” (CPLR 3213). The fact that the obligations guaranteed were evidenced in a series of underlying mortgages and modifications did not alter this fact, where the amount due was stipulated, and thus plain on the face of the document (see European Am. Bank v Lofrese, 182 AD2d 67, 71 [1992]). Concur—Gonzalez, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick and Freedman, JJ. [See 19 Misc 3d 1123(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 50830(U).]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mora v. Superblue Holdings, PBC
2025 NY Slip Op 32282(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
BLT Fund 9 Dayton's LLC v. 601 Minnesota Inv. LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 32120(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Fortress Credit Corp. v. Cohen
2025 NY Slip Op 01060 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Acquiom Agency Servs. LLC v. Fox Capital LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 51000(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
RS E Orange LLC v. Proudliving Cos., LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 31451(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Oak Rock Financial, LLC v. Rodriguez
2017 NY Slip Op 2048 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Olympus America, Inc. v. Beverly Hills Surgical Institute
110 A.D.3d 1048 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Carrera Casting Corp. v. Cord
106 A.D.3d 422 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Acadia Woods Partners, LLC v. Signal Lake Fund LP
102 A.D.3d 522 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Poah One Acquisition Holdings V Ltd. v. Armenta
96 A.D.3d 560 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Nordea Bank Finland PLC v. Holten
84 A.D.3d 589 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
IRB-Brazil Resseguros, S.A. v. Inepar Investments, S.A.
83 A.D.3d 573 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 A.D.3d 304, 874 N.Y.S.2d 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-america-v-solow-nyappdiv-2009.